In the Lindy Chamberlain murder case only I noted that Lindy was allowed to go home and look after her other children between her trials despite the risk that she would murder them too. The public never thought of this because they’d come to two separate conclusions, one that she was innocent, and two, that she should be punished anyway, possibly because she was a Seventh Day Adventist.
This was also the case with O.J. Simpson, who would not have hacked off his wife’s head, or nearly, while his children were sleeping upstairs, and left her body where they would find her in the morning, and get unbloodied into a car with no bloodstains in it, and fly to another town almost immediately, with no time to wash the car or his clothes or burn them. They knew he was innocent but felt he should be punished, like Othello, for being a big black man with a beautiful white unfaithful wife.
It was also the case with Strauss-Kahn: they knew mouth-rape was impossible without a lethal weapon, but felt he should be deprived of the French Presidency anyway.
In the case of Craig Thomson they know he saw no hooker, because her name and face and testimony has not been supplied, yet they think he should be kicked out of parliament because that would, or could, bring the Government down or ‘overshadow’ their good Budget, a Budget that might save them.
Where is the girl, or girls? Will she testify it was him she saw? Why would she not put her hand up? It was a legal transaction, in a town where prostitution was legal, policed and health-checked. Where is she?
Once again we have this phenomenon, a simultaneous belief in innocence and punishment, in punishing the innocent (like the children of boat people) for a larger, higher cause, the victory of the Murdochist filth-battalions over civilised reasoning on this continent.
That cause has been joined by nearly all the journalists. Why have they not found the girl? A couple of enquiries would do it.
The reason is it would help Craig Thomson.
And that would never do.
I await a sensational Laurie Oakes interview of the girl who was paid twelve hundred dollars, about what she thought of Craig and what they did together.
It could happen tomorrow.
The fact is, she doesn’t exist.
If she did, she would put her hand up. For, like Chantelois, an interview. And like Monica Lewinski describe his member.
She doesn’t exist.
I await proof that she does.
She is not a person, she is a figure of speech.
Name:
We are a punishing society, we were caned and bullied, now we do to others as was done to us and the lost boys of private/ boarding schools know best how to do it.
There is no singular “I”, let alone “we”. In Nietzschean terms, the self consists of competing impulses and instincts, with the strongest one winning out. In indigenous metaphysical terms, the self isn’t made up of a unitary soul but a cluster of souls, that change over the course of a lifetime.
This is why monotheism is so damaging. It makes external and singular what by rights is internal and multi-dimensional.
Yes Reader1. I was greatly amused at Joel whatsit over at the Drum, trying to enlist Nietzsche in his self-embarrassing diatribe about religion.
I suppose misquotings and misunderstandings – accidental or deliberate – can be used to enlist anyone’s ‘opinions’ in the Great Cause.
You know he didn’t have syphilis? I stumbled across a tiny article in the smh from about 2004 saying that the “he had sex once in his lifetime at a brothel and caught syphillis from the encounter” story was Nazi propaganda and he actually had a brain tumour. Explains his migraines but it also goes to show the complications arising from his ideas when the Nazi’s go to so much trouble. Meanwhile, he gets blamed for fuelling Hitler’s ideas. It would have had to have been an extremely selective reading on Hitler’s part.
But his chapter on the mental mechanism of Christianity, showing how you simply cannot think for yourself from within a Christian framework and that Christianity historically has been a political tool for the weak to wield against the strong and vital in trying to drag them down to a flattened level, is definitive. Don’t build a fortress on your weakest spot, Joel Hodges.
Doesn’t matter if he did. Schubert died of it, and we don’t think less of him because of it.
I don’t take N as gospel, but his ideas were very interesting and his concepts are useful.
Announcing that “God is Dead” is a better headline than “God Never Existed in the First Place”. Which latter is, I am 99.9% sure, the correct statement.
It’s the fact that the syphillis/brothel/sex just the once story wasn’t true and why it wasn’t true and why it was made up in the first place and why it was taken as true by everyone and why no one is interested in correcting it, apart from a tiny article in the SMH back in 2004. I wouldn’t want people thinking I had syphillis if I didn’t. Fair enough if I did.
And they say the syphillis made him crazy. Damon Young, or whatever that guy on Unleashed is called who keeps writing the same article and then providing links to other articles of his own that are exactly the same, said that only recently. Nietszche was sane until he, allegedly, ran across the road to protest a peasant being cruel to a horse, collapsed and was a vegetable for the next ten years. But he was sane up to then, and syphillis free.
It matters because it’s not true. The syphilis thing was the first thing we were taught about Nietzsche at uni. Combine that with the intimidating, moustachied picture on the cover and the century’s worth of smears and misunderstanding and I’ll be honest. Before reading him I thought he was a tosser and a loser.
Read the chapter where he breaks down the mindset of Christianity. Chapter two or three of BGE. You couldn’t take him as gospel if you wanted to, he’s too convoluted, but there is no need for years worth of Mitor the Bold bimbo blathering when it’s already been done, on behalf of the world, definitively.
He wasn’t referring to God, who he deemed irrelevant. He was commenting on Europeans at the time of his writing. It’s all about taking the piss out of Europeans. There is no more worthy subject.
I don’t mind the idea of Friedrich having a case of the Syph. He was never of a balanced ordinary mind, and Lou Salome (to whom? who? he proposed to at first sight) thought that Freddy had some other problems including Sadomasochism with a “propensity for self-inflicted pain and a streak of cruelty”.
Like Van Gogh Friedrich’s sanity came to the fore and is evident in the work, cogent, poetic, serene. Outside of their works they were recognizable “lunatics” as witnessed by Gaughin in the case of Vincent and Salome and Ree for FN.
A case of the clap for Herr Nietzsche does not diminish him in my eyes.
I’m going to breath my way through this in order to stay calm. Whether it diminishes him or not is beside the point (he didn’t have it). It is the historical interest inherent to the fact that the lie was initially propagated, and held to so firmly.
Paul Rees was his best friend and in the day him, Salome and Rees had a great time. There was even talk of three way sex but it’s so hard to know what’s true in Nietzsche’s biography. Salome ended up with Rees and while I haven’t read what she has to say, I’m sure it was an emotionally charged time all round.
Forget Nietzsche (polite, immaculately groomed, tidy), this is what his work is all about. People’s reaction to him are more of a reflection on his ideas than his own alleged personal pecadillos. I mean, we all go through phases. We’ve all had our Wagner period.
He wasn’t crazy. Anyone who says so has a vested interest or is a pansy.
Into the bike lane! – to applaud R1
I agree – well said R1.
Lindy Chamberlain, yes: Strauss-Kahn, probably: Craig Thompson, remains to be seen but entitled to presumption if charged (but a big ask for a hooker to remember any customer’s member unless it was truly memorable). But O J Simpson, Bob, sorry, guilty as sin.
Really? Why do you say that? What was his motive? What was his opportunity? Why didn’t he use a gun? Why didn’t he take the children away, or kill them too? Why was it not a drug-money-seeking burglar, or a member, like Squeaky Fromm, of a crazed Californian cult?
Why not a stranger?
Read the many books on OJ, Bob. I strongly recommend Outrage by Vincent Bugliosi, and The Run of his Life by Jeffrey Toobin.
The story being? Took off the bloodied glove, did he, and left it on the driveway?
Why was he acquitted?
Summarise.
Now Bob, you know as well as I do that what brings criminals unstuck is generally not brilliant detective work a la The Wire but that they make stupid mistakes.
They do things like leave their fingerprints, or leave their DNA somewhere, or concoct alibis that have a million holes in them, or leave paper trails, or make phone calls on tapped lines.
And yes, they are quite capable of doing things like forgetting a bloody glove.
The glove that didn’t fit him, you mean.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?
Do you.
I believe so.
Was the glove true, or not?
Please answer this.
The missing lady would probably be unwilling to let herself in for some Lewinski-sized notoriety. She may have subsumed herself into respectable suburbia for all we know. Prostitution is a very fluid demographic.
But, the truth will emerge and there will be red faces.
If an individual speaks out against the ALP/Union mafiaocracy, there will be reprisals.
No-one in their right mind blows the whistle and expects no backlash and personal threats – just ask Kathy Jackson.
It is not her choice. She is witness to an act, like flapped butterfly wings, that might bring down a government and change world history. If he has no right to privacy why does she?
‘For All We Know’, a lovely Vera Lynn song from Sir David’s early middle age. For all we know she would not remember the night she was paid twelve hundred dollars for a half hour’s work with a handsome young smart man. I would.
The essence of smear is a vague and ominous impression of wrong, or sin, or self-indulgence, or corrupt unseemly behaviour.
Once you add real detail, or ask for it, the fog of rumour dissipates. You realise that nothing’s there.
Supply the girl. Supply the girl.
Till then, there is reasonable doubt.
Apart from the smoking credit card statement.
You are really embarrassing yourself Bob, even in front of such a small audience.
Keep the entertainment rolling. The ALP doth protest too much.
It is known that twenty people used that credit card.
Jesus Christ. Give me a break.
Tell me the girl’s name.
Find it out.
Thompson admitted signing off the credit card charges for his expense report. He never queried the suspicious charges. Why? It’s just money earned by HSU members so who gives a crap?
How about we audit all Union executive credit cards?
How about Clive Palmer’s? He digs up minerals we, the people, own, and pays himself two thousand dollars an hour, three hundred and eighty thousand dollars a month for his titanic labours.
How does he spend all that money?
We have a right to know.
Tell me the girl’s name.
She is the crucial witness.
Who is she?
Please show me eight, nay – one pebble that Clive Palmer hasn’t paid a state royalty on. Palmer is not whoring away union members fees. You really like fighting for losing causes.
Think Clive should get two thousand dollars an hour, do you? Sixteen times the wage of Barack Obama?
Why, precisely?
Tell, tell.
And to what fixed amount shall we limit the annual income of playwrights and authors?
Twice the wage of Barack Obama would do me.
Bob is quite capable of defending himself but I think one can validly comment on the disparity of wages between two public figures without having to justify one’s own income.
So what?
THERE WERE NO FUCKING RULES SO IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE WHAT THE MONEY WAS FOR.
Good grief, this is quite the melodramatic feat of grubby, contorted logic to spare you from opening the other eye to your beloved phantom Labor Party. They are not worthy of such ethical acrobatics and straining to find moral equivalencies to excuse what is just slimy, reprehensible behaviour.
Why don’t you focus that preternatural imagination of yours on any number of logical reasons as to why an escort would not want to come forward about such an experience? I’ll give you 30 seconds thinking time ….
Can’t think of anything? Oh dear, that is quite a fortuitous creative cul-de-sac for you to have embarked upon. It does seem somewhat inconsistent for a man who can so easily discern the plausible pathology of a homicidal killer.
Looks like there were four of them.
One would.
For, say, eighty thousand dollars one would.
Wouldn’t you?
Not under any of the following perfectly reasonable and plausible circumstances:
- I don’t want my parents/partner/children/friends/strangers to know I am or was an escort.
- I am professionally minded and respect the privacy of my clients
- I have a modicum of self-respect
- I have a sincere distaste for the shallow sensationalism of a mainstream media who will abuse my trust and sense of self-worth far more than any pimp would countenance
- I have been long since deported to my home country, recovered from my years of drug abuse, fragile, and oblivious to the maelstrom enveloping that faraway country
- I am dead
This is tacky stuff, mate. This would make Alan Jones blush. Probably.
There may have been four girls.
This would apply to all of them, would it?
If they are human beings with functioning brains, then of course the first of those reasons alone could apply to any of them. You’re a writer aren’t you, Bob ? Write from experience. Spend a bit of quality time with some escorts – it’s your birthday, you deserve it. Find some high class types, talk to them, sleep with them, develop a rapport, delve into their sense of propriety, of what they might do for $1,200 but never do for $80,000. If the old lady is inflexible about it, then just use your imagination. But honestly. This is your challenge for the week.
So when there’s hearsay and a docket a man must be ruined, is that it, and when there’s a close-up and personal witness she should never be asked?
Why?
Is it because she doesn’t exist? And you know she doesn’t?
Well trivialised, Counsel for the Defence. Somewhat glib, but I will allow it. I now await your closing statement. Cafeful to make it rhyme, or I will direct the Jury to disregard. A Cochran-esque meter will be highly regarded in this matter.
Ellis for the Defence: Yes, M’lud, if you will permit me. [removes glasses and cooly surveys the jury] – “If the girls don’t fess up,
the thing’s a set up”
[There is a sharp intake of breath in the courtroom]
Reporter 1: Golly boss, Ellis has cracked the case again !
Bureau Chief: How does he do it ?
The Honorable Justice Albanese: Well done, Mr Ellis. Quite pithy.
Ellis for the Defence: [replacing glasses with a bemused smirk] M’lud.
Why should she not be found?
Why should she not be asked?
Why?
What are you, Spleenblatt, scared of?
My only fear is that one day you will in fact genuinely ban me from this site. Otherwise, I am unperturbed.
By all means, go find the girls. Harass them into the limelight of a public confession that the leather clad Union gimp whose mouth they urinated into was not in fact Craig Thompson. Ask them all about their interaction with Union officials and Labor Party candidates. Please do. You are not sufficiently afraid in this matter.
She urinated into his mouth, you say?
Why do you say that?
What information do you have on that?
Can you tell us more?
Don’t care what you say, do you.
Of course I don’t care what I say on this site, Bob – I am just following your lead. I will note, however, given your disturbing propensity for litigiousness, that such comically exaggerated comments would typically only be misconstrued in such a literal fashion by a grimly humorless conservative. Which you are most certainly not, cher Monsieur.
FROM ELLIS: Humourless conservative, you say. The author ofThe Hewson Tapes and The Leak-Ellis Almanac? Wow.
See what humour there is in mouth-urinating when Craig’s wife takes you to court.
Why are people tittering still about this when we know it is nonsense?
Pauline Fegan made the same charges against Jeff Jackson years ago so Kathy Jackson makes them against Fegans friend Thomson in their silly little power war.
Jackons is allowed to say whatever she likes and the silly little media clowns lap her up but she is a pathalogical liar who got one branch of the union shut down already.
The media know it is nothing more than an inner union power struggle but don’t care because they are now obsessed about nothing much.
Going to hookers is not illegal by the way,but many are covered by the union.
Pathological? Mmm.
And to be pedantic, you do not spell it the way that you do.
Well dawson and others I suggest you do some reading up about the shenanigans of Kathy Jackson.
Remember the sad tale of being terrified by a spade being left outside her house?
It was her own spade.
Forgotten in all this is that the Jacksons have been making trouble for anyone who opposed their feifdom for nearly 20 years – they get to claim innocence without question while Thomson who is probably just naive is demonised.
Jackson is all for Jackson, but still how does that excuse Thomson?
Seriously, these excuses such as no rules are irrelevant the man, used the credit card, for personal gain repeatedly. If I did what he did I would be fired, potentially go to jail and have to payback the money, and have a very serious tax liability.
I have never looked up the rules for use of my credit card but I strangely know you should only use it for work purposes. Not hookers, not taking my wife on trips and when I’m on leave, certainly never to withdraw cash unless in the most dire emergency.
Stop excusing the inexcusable.
Thomson did nothing fucking illegal you moron.
How many times do you have to be told that the
FWA report said he broke rules that did not exist.
In Chapter 6 of the Fair Work Report they have 3 paragraphs where they explain their reasoning.
In para 592 they say there was no formal policy on travel, rather an informal understanding that allowed his expenditure.
In para 598 they say there was no policy allowing him to do it.
In para 599 they say his terms of employment did not specifically allow him to do it.
So in 3 paras they say there was no policy anywhere saying he could or could not spend money.
Incredibly they go on to say he “therefore broke the rules
I happen to know for a fact that John Howard is an oral urinator. Only with his wife, of course, it’s all strictly above board. He has been quoted as saying, “it feels good and Janette doesn’t mind. You only live once, right?”.
Jesus, thanks a bunch. It is not a perversion I have tried or thought of, but I bow to your superior information.
Wow.
All the Liberals do it. And the Nationals. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it, though, not having tried it myself.
Reader, god,how truly revolting you are..
Fuck off, Helvi, once and for all. I didn’t bring up the mouth urination. I thought it a fairly outlandish inclusion in the saga and was alluding to that outlandishness indirectly. You malevolent, obsessed pinhead.
To others – the theory goes that the glove shrunk from blood and moisture.
And in all honesty, I don’t believe it to be a common practice. Hitler was accused of doing it with Eva Braun, even worse still in the version I heard, which is why I think it may be a stock in trade propoganda trick from way back, straight out of the top drawer. They’re not even trying any more.
It just doesn’t ring true, somehow. But I didn’t think to bring it up initially, it was the furthest thing from my mind, and Bob has referred to it in a more recent article and there has been much discussion of it above. But no, all of a sudden I’m the oral urinator proponent. Even more so than Craig Thompson if you can believe that.
It’s not me that is the oral urinator proponent. It’s the entire Liberal movement.
Some say there was a third glove, seen on the seat of a bus going crosstown. Some say it had six fingers.
R1, I am always willing to be schooled, but I understood the Salome-Ree relationship to be platonic, in the end FN lost both of them and was probably attracted to both of them and his lonely existence after that was only intensified. Salome ended up with Rilke actually, and a friend and follower of Freud, (she obviously knew a thing or two about poets).
It is also muted that Van Gogh’s madness was syphillis driven, I know of nobody that has a lesser opinion of his work because he had the clap (most probably they say from a visit to a brothel), perhaps that was the standard diagnosis back in the day, both FN and VVG being contemporaries, and more forgivable or socially acceptable than being mad.
I tried to make the point that both of their works were immaculate, groomed and tidy, see if you can use paint in the way that Vinny did, and keep it so clean and pristine. The work of both is sane, you can hear the quiet of their minds in the work, during the work.
I have only read syphlis with a ? mark behind it when attempts were made to diagnose what ailed FN, and left him as a living corpse proudly exhibited by his sister for all to see. I like the old terms like “brain fever”, but I have also read, brain tumour and the result of a massive breakdown.
When I said he is not diminished, I meant his work. I can see no madness in it. If Hitler could oversee the clap, I think we all can, given Adi’s penchant for clean living and other Aryan ideals.
In the past FN’s alleged bisexuality may have been more reason to dismiss his work and sully his reputation with his visits to Sicily,than his getting a dose from a prostitute.
I doubt Hitler read FN and if he did, you are right it must have been very selective. Have you read “Hitler’s Private Library”, couldn’t find much evidence of volumes of FN or Schopenhauer or even Fichte. AH I am sure visited FN because of the Wagner connection, and to enjoy a Ripley believe it or not moment.
What I find in a lot of his work is a sunny disposition, and I think he would have been a witty and funny guy on a good day in the right company when the headaches relented, despite his intensity.
Did John Lennon have sex with Brian Epstein?
“In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice”
Adolf Hitler, April 1922.
Does that frighten anyone? It should.